851
Well-known member
@2041 said in [Signing Suggestions & Rumours](/post/1041500) said:@matchball said in [Signing Suggestions & Rumours](/post/1041490) said:@2041 said in [Signing Suggestions & Rumours](/post/1041477) said:@matchball said in [Signing Suggestions & Rumours](/post/1041444) said:@2041 said in [Signing Suggestions & Rumours](/post/1041426) said:@matchball said in [Signing Suggestions & Rumours](/post/1041269) said:@2041 said in [Signing Suggestions & Rumours](/post/1041143) said:George Burgess signed for Wigan. At least that's one bullet dodged.
He is exactly what we need. We should have went hard for him.
2014 called. It wants to know what you've been watching for the past five years.
He is better than anything we have right now in the forwards.
First, no he's not. He plays short minutes, has dreadful hands and is a disciplinary liability. He also makes far less impact than you seem to recall.
More to the point, he's going to be on pretty big money. This is *exactly* the sort of signing we need to avoid making: possibly a marginal upgrade (though quite possibly not) but at a cost that burns salary cap. We literally still have Russell Packer to remind us why this sort of signing would be a disaster yet you want to cheerily throw away another bunch of money.
Do you not think it's significant that all the smart clubs in the NRL were apparently happy to let him go to the UK? He wanted to stay in Australia yet he couldn't even get a bid out of perennial dum dums like the Tigers, Parra, Titans or Bulldogs. Surely that's telling you something?
That's why he left NRL. He couldn't command the money that SL offered after his dirty play this year.
That's the type we should try, on the outer and a bargain.
Let's just recruit nobody and keep plodding.
Honestly, I'm laughing at "bargain". Think about it, seriously. "He couldn't command the money" - what does that mean? It means "no-one was prepared to offer him the money".
You think the Storm and the Roosters didn't want George Burgess because he's currently suspended? Wrong. They didn't want him because his contract demands were unreasonable based on what they actually expect him to deliver on the field in 2020-22 (rather than what they remember him delivering in 2014, which is quite substantially different).
Anyway, the options are not (A) sign George Burgess and (B) sign no-one. If we have cap room we will presumably use it on someone. If we don't, we won't (but we wouldn't have been able to sign George Burgess anyway).
George Burgess's best days were literally half a decade ago. The idea of devoting significant cap space to a dick-fingered walking penalty is exactly, precisely what got the Tigers into the mess they are now.
I'm sorry for being harsh here, it's not what I usually set out to do. But seriously, you have to get your head around how smart teams run their cap. Yes, good teams always have an eye for a bargain and look to improve in any way they efficiently can.
But George Burgess is not a bargain. Yes, there was no-one in the NRL as pathologically stupid as Parra when they were prepared to offer him $2m for three years, and of course if he'd been available for next to nothing he would have been a smart pickup (and he'd have gone to the Roosters). But all reports are that he is not missing out in England. And he is categorically not a player you want to be devoting serious money to.
It's not often I suggest reading the Souths forum for a dose of sanity, but the mood there should tell you absolutely everything you need to know about George Burgess. Lots of "good luck big guy" and fond reminiscences about what he did in the 2014 side... and absolutely not a single person remotely disappointed to lose him. They're delighted to be thinking about what they can do with the money he frees up, in fact.
Burgess wigan deal is supposedly $500k a year, not a huge pay day